Should we be surprised there is no scientific proof of God?
It seems that many skeptics of God like to base their arguments in the fact that there is no proof of God's existence and that science has not proved that God exists. Many atheists insist that God's existence must be scientific/empirical or otherwise there is no reason to believe a designer exists. This article will examine whether science would be able to prove God's existence.
It is important to note what we mean by scientific proof of God. Proof is not evidence. We are referring to complete physical proof of God. We have, for example, complete physical proof of the existence of galaxies, turtles, and stars. Now it is obvious that God could intervene and give us a sign that would completely prove his existence. If you are interested in knowing the Islamic perspective as to why God does not give us signs that would completely prove his existence, please click here.
So the question is, can science prove that God exists. In other words, can science show us with complete certainty that God is the creator of the universe. Science works through inductive methods. We do an experiment and we repeat it many times, and if we always get the same results, we conclude that it is scientifically ''proven'' and we would know that if we repeated the experiment again, we would get the same results. This is how we get our scientific "facts". Science requires the use of things that we could experiment on/test. Science is all about detectability / observability / verifiability. Now the question is, what if there is something that we cannot measure/observe/verify/detect? Science cannot answer if such things exist so it cannot be determined that such things exist as per naturalistic explanation because the nature of the entity is not within the scope of science.
To restate, science deals with things we can observe/measure/verify/detect. If something is timeless/space-less/transcendent and it created space-time (consisting of matter and energy), then it cannot be observed/measured/verified/detected! Things we can observe/measure/verify/detect are only things that exist in the Universe. God by definition is the creator of the universe, space, time, matter and energy! This means that he is not composed of such things and that he is outside of the universe (transcendent). God exists outside of the universe and the scope of science includes only things that exist in the universe therefore God's existence is beyond science's scope.
The premises could go like this:
1.) The scope of Science includes only things we can detect, observe, measure, or verify
2.) We cannot detect, observe, measure, or verify things outside of space-time (matter, energy, time) such as God
3.) Therefore God is not within Science's scope
This is a deductive argument. This means that if first 2 premises are true, the conclusion must logically follow. If you reject premise 1, you are being unscientific as that is widely accepted by philosophers and scientists alike. If we cannot detect observe, measure, or verify something, then how can we run scientific experiments on it? If you reject premise 2, you are again not being faithful to the scientific evidence as everything that we have verified exists in space-time (matter,energy, time). I cannot think of any intellectually honest way to reject premise 2 while being faithful to the scientific evidence. So once premise 1 and premise 2 are established, premise 3 must logically and necessarily follow thereby making God beyond science's scope. In conclusion, we should not be surprised that there is no scientific proof of God.
What about the argument that science in the future will progress and be able to find things outside of space-time, like matter/energy/time? With the fact that science cannot account for things beyond matter/time/energy which exist only in the universe (because humans can only observe/measure/detect/verify things in our universe), then a scientific viewpoint has no answer to the question of whether God exists and no definite future answer can be determined. It would be like having the hope that science would be able to find a round square in the future. It is logically impossible for a round square to exist.
For another perspective at the existence of God in light of scientific evidence, please watch the following 2 videos:
It is important to note what we mean by scientific proof of God. Proof is not evidence. We are referring to complete physical proof of God. We have, for example, complete physical proof of the existence of galaxies, turtles, and stars. Now it is obvious that God could intervene and give us a sign that would completely prove his existence. If you are interested in knowing the Islamic perspective as to why God does not give us signs that would completely prove his existence, please click here.
So the question is, can science prove that God exists. In other words, can science show us with complete certainty that God is the creator of the universe. Science works through inductive methods. We do an experiment and we repeat it many times, and if we always get the same results, we conclude that it is scientifically ''proven'' and we would know that if we repeated the experiment again, we would get the same results. This is how we get our scientific "facts". Science requires the use of things that we could experiment on/test. Science is all about detectability / observability / verifiability. Now the question is, what if there is something that we cannot measure/observe/verify/detect? Science cannot answer if such things exist so it cannot be determined that such things exist as per naturalistic explanation because the nature of the entity is not within the scope of science.
To restate, science deals with things we can observe/measure/verify/detect. If something is timeless/space-less/transcendent and it created space-time (consisting of matter and energy), then it cannot be observed/measured/verified/detected! Things we can observe/measure/verify/detect are only things that exist in the Universe. God by definition is the creator of the universe, space, time, matter and energy! This means that he is not composed of such things and that he is outside of the universe (transcendent). God exists outside of the universe and the scope of science includes only things that exist in the universe therefore God's existence is beyond science's scope.
The premises could go like this:
1.) The scope of Science includes only things we can detect, observe, measure, or verify
2.) We cannot detect, observe, measure, or verify things outside of space-time (matter, energy, time) such as God
3.) Therefore God is not within Science's scope
This is a deductive argument. This means that if first 2 premises are true, the conclusion must logically follow. If you reject premise 1, you are being unscientific as that is widely accepted by philosophers and scientists alike. If we cannot detect observe, measure, or verify something, then how can we run scientific experiments on it? If you reject premise 2, you are again not being faithful to the scientific evidence as everything that we have verified exists in space-time (matter,energy, time). I cannot think of any intellectually honest way to reject premise 2 while being faithful to the scientific evidence. So once premise 1 and premise 2 are established, premise 3 must logically and necessarily follow thereby making God beyond science's scope. In conclusion, we should not be surprised that there is no scientific proof of God.
What about the argument that science in the future will progress and be able to find things outside of space-time, like matter/energy/time? With the fact that science cannot account for things beyond matter/time/energy which exist only in the universe (because humans can only observe/measure/detect/verify things in our universe), then a scientific viewpoint has no answer to the question of whether God exists and no definite future answer can be determined. It would be like having the hope that science would be able to find a round square in the future. It is logically impossible for a round square to exist.
For another perspective at the existence of God in light of scientific evidence, please watch the following 2 videos:
